Download The North Sea Regional Advisory Council

The North Sea Advisory Council
Agenda No 2
Paper No 4.1
Paper for Discussion
Brown Shrimp Focus Group
19th May 2015
Draft advice on the Brown Shrimp roadmap provided by ICES
1.0
Background
1.1
In 2013 ICES held a workshop to create pro bono advice on the need of
management for shrimp (C. crangon). At the initiative of the fishing industry the
German and Dutch Member States (governments??) agreed that this workshop
would be a good starting point to present ICES with a request to provide them
with advice on the potential need for management of the brown shrimp (C.
crangon) fisheries in the North Sea.
1.2
ICES was asked to list the pros and cons of management, to describe the role
of brown shrimp in the ecosystem (specifically whether brown shrimp could be
considered as a key Low Trophic Level species), and to determine the impact
of this fishery on other commercially exploited stocks in relation to multispecies
and mixed fisheries considerations.
1.3
Additionally, ICES was asked to provide information on potential management
approaches if management was shown to be useful.
1.4
In October 2014 ICES provided the two Member States with an advice. Within
this advice a roadmap was included, describing how best to implement a
Harvest Control Rule based on Landings Per Unit of Effort (LPUE) reference
values.
1.5
The NSAC Brown Shrimp Focus Group has agreed to form an opinion on the
ICES advice before developing a possible operational action plan.
1.6
In this document growth overfishing is not connected with recruitment
overfishing, rather it is connected with a less than optimal harvest strategy. This
is further explained in 2.2 and 2.3.
2.0
ICES advice October 2014
Page 1 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
2.1
It was noted that all countries report effort differently so it is difficult to compare
between Member States, for example effort has been noted in hours, in days
at sea, etc.
2.2
The number of active vessels in the North Sea brown shrimp fishery has been
constant over the last years. However, engine power has increased and some
older vessels have been replaced by new and more efficient ships. Additionally,
the power of deck equipment has increased. This has led to an unmonitored
and unregistered effort creep over the last decades.
2.3
Since 1990 gadoid species have been decreasing, thereby increasing the
portion of brown shrimp that is taken by the fishery. This has resulted in an
increased F/M ratio (meaning that the fraction of the fishing mortality has been
increasing whilst the fraction of brown shrimp taken by natural mortality has
decreased). Since the fishery mostly targets the large individuals of a
population, this has resulted in a decline of the abundance of large shrimps.
2.4
The ICES paper mainly focussed on shrimps of commercial landing size, i.e.
shrimps of 50 mm or bigger. Little is known about the mortality of juvenile brown
shrimp. Which are of a much higher importance as a food resource for other
species. Shrimps of more than 50 mm are only consumed by big gadoids.
2.5
Although genetic studies have not shown that there is more than one stock of
brown shrimp within the North Sea, different patterns have been seen, for
example landings of brown shrimp in 2007 were best in the UK while lowest in
the continental fisheries. Thus even if it is one genetic stock the fisheries have
no overlap and should be managed separately.
2.6
It was also noted that in previous studies by-catch in the brown shrimp fisheries
had been estimated to be responsible for a reduction of 10% spawning stock
biomass in plaice (details of Imares report to be provided). Benthic effects were
not extensively discussed in the advice but there were potential effects. Over
all there were signs of growth overfishing.
3.0
Challenges of C. crangon management
3.1
Since all Member States are committed to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP),
all are committed to reaching MSY before 2020. However, for the brown shrimp
stock there are no clear proxies for MSY. Scientific authorities stated that
additional research is probably needed before these proxies can be
determined.
3.2
The trade and processing companies of brown shrimp urge the fishery and the
scientific authorities to gain better understanding of the possible proxies for
MSY since this is crucial in procuring the MSC certificate for brown shrimp. The
retail industry is reluctant to take any risks with a product that does not hold
MSC certification.
Page 2 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
3.3
Due to the patchy distribution of fishing vessels large numbers of samples are
needed to reduce “noise” in VMS and logbook data. Additionally, the Belgian
fisheries for brown shrimp is a seasonal fishery and the information gathered
from this fishery is therefore patchy in time.
3.4
There is a lot of information on which management could be based. However,
there are also many assumptions. ICES has advised the NSAC not to wait until
the scientific information is adequate enough but to create an adaptive
management that can be updated constantly based on the latest information.
3.5
There is also the UK situation, the ICES advice suggested that there is one
stock but did not take into account the fact that there is a geographical
separation of fisheries in the UK and on the continental shelf. Therefore
assumptions in the ICES advice might not be applicable in the UK.
3.6
State ruled or EU management is mostly rigid. Since there are so many
uncertainties of how best to manage brown shrimp the incorporation of some
sort of (adaptive) result-based management would be preferred. Therefore it
would not (yet) be advisable to manage brown shrimp fishing on a State or EU
level.
3.7
Usually limit reference points would be based on years and years of data.
However, due to the short life span of the brown shrimps, annual TAC’s based
on annual stock assessments are not applicable. Therefore a new
management system is needed as none of the usual fisheries management
systems apply to the fishery on this species.
3.8
A management system based on a Harvest Control Rule (HCR) is considered
to be a good starting point. Since the size of the population of brown shrimp is
unidentified, the limit reference points for this HCR are hard to identify.
3.9
Management of such an extensively spread population should be an
international goal since it is not possible to monitor the effect of management
when a country manages its stock all by itself.
3.10
A considerable part of the brown shrimp fishery takes place in Natura 2000
sites and national protection areas. This would also need to be taken into
account in a management plan.
3.11
The NSAC agreed that a management plan must aim to significantly improve
the current situation of non-management and growth overfishing.
3.12
According to ICES, there are indications that the brown shrimp stock of the
North Sea is experiencing growth overfishing. As a solution ICES suggests a
decrease in effort. However, a decreasing effort does not necessarily lead to
reaching MSY, this needs to be underlined with scientific data and not just
assumed.
4.0
Benefits of C. crangon management
Page 3 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
4.1
A more intense managed brown shrimp fishery in the North Sea would be
beneficial in procuring the MSC certificate. A certified North Sea brown shrimp
fishery would create new market possibilities as sustainable sourcing of the
stock would be assured.
4.2
Currently, trade and processing companies consider brown shrimp to be a risky
product to invest in due to the lack of proof of sustainable sourcing. Investors
want to make sure that their investments are safe for the long term. Therefore
the fishing industry needs to provide information on how the brown shrimp
fishery is managed. If the fishing industry has no data which they can provide
to the trade and processing companies, they in turn have no information to
assure the retail that the brown shrimp fishery is sustainably managed and thus
comes from a reliable source. This leads to the assumption that the fishery
needs some form of structure, more than is present at the moment. Thus, the
trade and processing companies urge the fishing industry to put some form of
management in place.
4.3
Regulating this fishery will counteract growth overfishing and potentially
increase the sustainability of the fishery.
4.4
When gadoid species stocks recover, the need to implement some sort of
management might become more pressing, because of the direct competition.
4.5
As previously mentioned in 2.2, the brown shrimp fishery has undergone
considerable technological improvement over the last decade, possibly leading
to an effort creep. This issue can be addressed in a management plan. ICES
assumed a considerable effort creep, therefore a management would induce
the possibility to manage this aspect of the shrimp fishery .
5.0
Conclusion
5.1
The NSAC and ICES conclude that some sort of management is needed. And
that this management should preferably be adaptive.
5.2
Additionally, the NSAC is of the opinion that this management should be led by
the fishing industry itself. Thereby taking into account the most recent scientific
developments and stakeholder consultations in a NSAC context.
5.3
The ICES advice of October 2014 is the best information currently available.
But it would be best to further explore the sensitivities of the uncertainties that
could affect the brown shrimp stock in the North Sea (i.e. what happens when
temperature changes?).
5.4
When management is implemented this management should not be rigid but
take on a form that is more adaptive and that can be adapted quickly when
new scientific information is available. For instance: a management system
run on a fishery/ stakeholder level, supported by science. No detailed
regulation should be pursued yet. Additionally, logical and sensible
Page 4 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission
management goals need to be set. In this respect special consideration
should be given to the position of stakeholders in such a management set up.
5.5
Management needs to be further developed in the context of the NSAC
process. An agreement needs to be reached in the NSAC on how best to
manage the brown shrimp fishery of the North Sea. It is thereby important that
the fishing industry closely collaborates with managers to take steps in
collecting data and deciding on what will be the best management system to
operate in, using the most recent scientific data available.
5.6
The ICES advice is considered to be a good starting point. Now the focus needs
to be on how management should evolve. However, extra data should be
gathered on the natural mortality, gadoid predation on juveniles and adults, etc.
5.7
Furthermore, any advice would need to take into account the different issues
faced by the UK fishing industry. Therefore, additional research is needed.
5.8
An LPUE based management contingent on appropriate operational
arrangements is agreeable, this can communicate real time information on the
fisheries.
5.9
There have been many changes over the last few years with the new Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and
thoughts on how to regulate Natura 2000. The ICES paper could be a useful
starting point, a roadmap on which the NSAC could provide advice. In terms of
management the NSAC could improve what currently is available and advise
the fisheries sector to keep management adaptive. From a markets (i.e. trade
and processing companies) point of view MSC is a fact of life and the customers
determine what they want. The NSAC advice could draw out some aspects of
the ICES advice and develop it. Moreover, the NGOs would like to see a results
based management approach, it would decrease the fear of bureaucracy
(what??) and reduce the fear of over regulation.
5.10
Since the NSAC is an internationally recognized body this would be a good
platform to give advice on management of the brown shrimp fishery. Thereby
consulting with fishermen to get them involved in the decision making process.
5.11
The NSAC advises to only target the bullet points of the roadmap of ICES that
are ‘need to know’ and not start giving advice on the ‘nice to know’ issues.
Page 5 NSAC
Supported by The
European Commission